Wrede einde

Wrede einde

2010-04-05 00:12
Verslagspan
JOHANNESBURG. – “My broer se gesig is fyngekap. Dit was ’n wrede moord.”
Dit was gister die woorde van mnr. Eugene Terre’Blanche, leier van die Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), se enigste broer, Andries, aan tientalle emosionele boere en lede van die AWB by die ingang na Terre’Blanche se plaas buite dié dorp. Hy het boere gevra om môre in hul massas na die Ventersdorpse landdroshof op te ruk vir die verskyning van sy broer se twee vermeende moordenaars, wat glo vir hom gewerk het.
Intussen het die ANC gister opnuut sy gewig agter sy jeugleier, mnr. Julius Malema, gegooi terwyl pres. Jacob Zuma die “Skiet die Boer”-lied steeds nie regstreeks veroordeel nie.
Zuma het in ’n spesiale uitsending gisteraand op SABC3 die land tot kalmte gemaan ná die grusame moord op Terre’Blanche.
Hy het dit as ’n lafhartige daad bestempel, maar het nie reguit na Malema verwys nie.
Volgens Terre’Blanche se familie, boere en AWB-lede hou die wrede aanval op hom regstreeks verband met die haatspraak-liedjie teen boere deur Malema.
Politieke partye, met die uitsondering van die ANC, het Malema deur die bank veroordeel.
Lede van die AWB het gesê die moord op Terre’Blanche is ’n “oorlogsverklaring deur swart mense op wit mense”.
Terre’Blanche (69) is eergisteraand met pangas doodgekap terwyl hy op sy bed op sy plaas, Witrandjiesfontein, in die distrik Ventersdorp geslaap het.
Die AWB-leier het nog herstel van ’n onlangse groot operasie.
Sy gesig is onherkenbaar vermink deur die kapwonde. Daar was geen tekens dat hy hom probeer verweer of die houe probeer afkeer het nie.
Die panga is op die lyk gelaat waarna twee jong plaaswerkers die polisie van ’n buurplaas gebel en hulself oorgegee het.
Mnr. André Visagie, sekretaris-generaal van die AWB, het gister gesê die mense wat sy leier vermoor het, is jonk en van die mense wat regstreeks deur Malema aangespreek word. “Ons beskou die moord as ’n oorlogsverklaring van swart mense.”
Hy het in ’n verklaring gesê die AWB gaan wraak neem op Terre’Blanche se moord. Hy het gesê hulle gaan lande wat aan WB 2010 deelneem, betrek by hul planne.
Van die mense wat gister voor Terre’Blanche se huis op Ventersdorp rondgestaan het, het gesê die feit dat die moordenaars hul wapen op Terre’Blanche se lyk gelos en hulself oorgegee het, is “uittartend”.
Zuma het gister “swart en wit” gevra om kalm te bly en ’n beroep gedoen op “leiers en organisasies” om nie Terre’Blanche se dood te gebruik om politieke punte te wen nie.
Terre’Blanche se weduwee, Martie, wou nie gister met Zuma of die media praat nie. Hy het toe sy simpatie met die gesin aan Terre’Blanche se dogter, Bea, oorgedra.
Mnr. Nathi Mthethwa, minister van polisie, en genl. Bheki Cele, nasionale polisiehoof, het die misdaadtoneel besoek.
Op ’n mediakonferensie wat deur nog talle hooggeplaaste polisiebeamptes bygewoon is, is herhaaldelik gesê dat die moord deeglik deur die beste polisiespeurders ondersoek sal word.
Terre’Blanche het nog onlangs gesê hy “verklaar met veragting dat die ANC-regering en sy sogenaamde jeugbeweging onder Malema inderdaad oorlog verklaar het teen weerlose boervroue en -kinders”.
Hy het gedreig: “Óf sy (Malema se) leiers maak hom stil, óf ons sal moet optree.”
Politieke leiers oor die spektrum heen het gister geëis dat pres. Jacob Zuma die “Kill the Boer”-lied in die openbaar veroordeel en sy ANC-jeugleier in die bek ruk.
Die twee jong mans – ’n 16-jarige en ’n 21-jarige – sal môre in die hof verskyn in verband met die moord.
- Volksblad

Comment:

Recieved the by email 04 April 2010
S.Africa: 2010:
Attention: President Jacob Zuma - Do you want a Race War with the Afrikaners IMMEDIATELY?
Date Posted: Sunday 04-Apr-2010
[I would like to ask everyone a special favour. Please, please, please, spread this following message around via email, website or blog or by any means you have. It is a statement I am making and I want President Jacob Zuma as well as people inside and outside South Africa to read this. If President Jacob Zuma does want a racial war against us, then let's have it now. Jan Lamprecht]
I think we should stop pussy-footing around over the issue of ANC race-baiting which has been going on now for months. Julius Malema, as the head of the ANC Youth League has been stirring up race hatred and inciting racial hatred against whites for months now.
Now he wants to sing "Kill the Boer" songs despite court orders against this and the ANC Govt is rushing to defend this in court. Julius Malema is constantly slandering and attacking white people and inciting racial hatred towards them, in public.
Then he claims that white people want to kill him - a claim which I think is also fraudulent actually.
Let me state a few simple facts:-1) We Whites in South Africa have NOT been plotting any kind of war against the Govt.
2) We Whites have NOT been accumulating arms or ammunition.
3) We Whites have NOT been building bombs, carrying out terror operations nor engaging in assassination.
4) We Whites have NOT been engaging in any race hatred nor race hate speech nor singing songs about killing black people.
5) We Whites have NOT been carrying out any strikes nor burning nor breaking any property. We Whites HAVE been going about our business quietly. We have been paying our taxes and been law-abiding citizens.
We have noticed that:
-1) Julius Malema, the head of the ANC Youth League has singularly, for months on end, been making the most racist statements imaginable which have been spread in the mass media.
2) Julius Malema has not been taken to task by the ANC.
3) Julius Malema has in fact been defended by the ANC who are willing to go to court so that he can sing in public rallies, the song: "Kill the Boer".
4) Julius Malema has been defended in person by President Jacob Zuma who has told us that Malema is being groomed to be a future President.
5) Julius Malema at this time is on official business, sent to Zimbabwe to speak to Robert Mugabe and to the ZANU PF Youth League. He has gone there on the instruction of our Govt. He is openly speaking and saying that in South Africa the White Farmland is to be seized using the same methods as were used in Zimbabwe in 2000.
During all this time of Julius Malema's actions, the ANC has in its official capacity supported him and so has our President Jacob Zuma. Zuma has openly defended his actions in speeches.
So here is my message to President Jacob Zuma:
-Sir, If you desire a racial war against us White people, and against the Afrikaners in particular, then let's not play games any more - just come out and say you want to go to war against us.
If you have been making clandestine preparations for our genocide and for a series of moves that will lead to our genocide, then so be it.
We do not have any arms or armies, except those personal firearms which we have been licensed to use, and if you wish to have a war against us, to exterminate us completely, then we will fight with what little we have right here, right now.
Just tell us when you want the war, and we will meet you whereever it is that you wish to fight us.
Julius Malema is your agent. He works for you.
If you do not shut him up with IMMEDIATE EFFECT, we will regard this as a CLANDESTINE DECLARATION OF RACIAL WAR AND INTENT TO GENOCIDE AGAINST US BY YOU.
Thank you,
Jan Lamprecht.
South African Citizen
.Owner of: AfricanCrisis website.
Posted By: Jan

AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception
My all time favourite movie quote is from the Dwarf in Lord of the Rings:"Certainty of death, small chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

( Mail and Guardian online)

ANC reversing ’shoot the boer’ will test the Constitution

The African National Congress has confirmed that it will be taking legal steps to reverse the decision of the South Gauteng High Court on Thursday which granted an interdict against ANCYL leader Julius Malema singing dubula ibhunu [shoot the boer].
ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu issued a statement on Friday in terms whereof the ruling party confirmed it will be approaching the courts, including the Constitutional Court, in order to challenge the High Court’s ruling. It also expressed disappointment at Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann’s “lack of consideration” for the historical context of the song.
The matter has been referred to the Equality Court by Bertelsmann.
Two interest groups are confronting each other on this issue: The ANC/ANCYL, who believe that the song — regardless of how inappropriate the words may be — forms part of the country’s history and culture and the white, Afrikaner community represented by Afriforum, who say the word “boer”, in the context of the song, is derogatory and refers to farmers, whites and Afrikaners in particular.
Interestingly, certain members of the legal fraternity across racial lines have sympathy with the ANC on this issue.
This arises out of concern for the attack on South Africans’ Constitutional right to freedom of expression rather than any love for the song itself.
Professor Pierre de Vos, an expert on constitutional law, believes that the hate speech provisions which form the basis for granting the order may be unconstitutional in themselves.
“One should be careful not to endorse legislation merely because it is being used in one case against one person whom one may not like very much. It is always better to look in a principled manner at legislation and to ask whether the legislation is good or bad for our democracy and whether the legislation passes constitutional muster. This is why I believe it is important to look critically at the hate-speech provision in section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (The Act).
Such a critical evaluation will reveal that there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the hate-speech provision. In fact, I suspect that the provision is unconstitutional and hope that it will be challenged by someone (Julius are you there?), so that it can be declared invalid by the Constitutional Court.” (De Vos)
The professor then sets out the basis for his assertion that the provisions may well be unconstitutional.
Those who are following the case should click on the link and take the time to read his argument.
Of course there are also other issues that come into play here.
In terms of the Bill of Rights (Chapter 2 of the Constitution), equality (Section 9) may well conflict with freedom of expression, (Section 16) in respect of this issue.
In this regard Section 9 reads as follows:
9.1 Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
9.2 Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
9.3 The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
9.4 * No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (9.3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
9.5 Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.
Unlike the Act (see above) being too wide when regard is had to the Constitution — thus making the hate-speech provisions potentially unconstitutional — here we are dealing with two sections of the Constitution which appear to be in conflict with each other when it comes to dealing with the legality of the song.
Do the rights of the farmers to protection under the law supersede those of Malema’s to freedom of expression or vice versa?
The answer is not simply one or the other.
In practice our courts interpret legislation in order to see where certain rights begin and end, thereby giving them boundaries. In that way people are made to understand to what degree their rights extend.
In this case, to what extent the song may be sung, if at all, before it infringes on the Constitutional rights of others, if at all?
It will certainly provide for fascinating argument and enrich our democracy no end if conducted in the spirit of debate and not confrontation.

SOURCE:

( Mail and Guardian online.. By Michael Trapido